2
   

Guantanamo suicides confirmed

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 10:42 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
According to you, prisoners should not be taken in a war without a trial first? This would be radically different from what has been done in past wars.


So we are speaking now of POW's?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 10:43 am
SierraSong wrote:
From the article you posted, one detainee blahbity-blahs ad nauseum of mistreatment by the EVIL U.S., isolation, no phone calls ... blah blah blah.

THEN ... there's this:

Quote:
Q: If not Albania, where do you want to be?

A: Were hoping that the United States government would recognize the mistake that it has done and accept, allow us to enter the United States.


ROTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


How could I miss this prove of criminal and terroristic activity. Shocked

Sorry.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 10:54 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
My question pertained to the circumstances of their capture. Neither your answer nor the link contains information that any prisoner was picked up without any reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Please tell me where the Pentagon published the grounds for suspicion that led to each specific prisoner's capture. I'll read it and get back to you.

Not a serious argument by you.

In our legal culture, the burden of proof is not on those who think people should be free. It is on those who think people should be in prison. In this case, this means I don't have to prove the inmates of Gitmo are wrongfully imprisoned. The Pentagon has to prove the inmates are rightfully imprisoned. Maybe I should have made this implication explicit.

Brandon9000 wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Many people who are taken prisoner or arrested are later found to be innocent. What does that prove?

That it's not a good idea to treat detainees as irregular enemy combatants before their status is determined by a competent tribunal.

So, according to you, the fact that someone is eventually found innocent proves he shouldn't have been arrested or captured? According to you, prisoners should not be taken in a war without a trial first? This would be radically different from what has been done in past wars.

No, according to me, people caught by your troops should receive a speedy trial by a competent tribunal. If that tribunal finds a prisoner innocent, it should release them. If it finds him guilty, he stays as a prisoner of war, for the duration of the war, under the rules of the Geneva convention. But imprisoning people indefinitely without some process for petitioning their status is not acceptable.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 11:50 am
msolga wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Merry Andrew wrote:
In some ways this is a lot worse than a suicide bombing. This will get the world's attention and sympathy. The administration has to do something about Gitmo. It's become an international disgrace.


What is disgraceful about holding captured unlawful combatants incommunicado until the end of the war?

We certainly aren't going to let them go free once we've captured them. About the only alternative is to execute them on the spot when they are caught on the battlefield.


It wasn't a "war". It was an invasion by the US of Iraq. For absolutely no defensible reason. There were no WMDs. Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11.


I don't think Iraq has anything to do with the detainees at Guantanamo.

This is most definitely a war.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 11:59 am
msolga wrote:
If these people who are detained at Guantanamo have actually committed real crimes then they should be tried (& not in a kangaroo court, a proper, lawful one. Like you would expect if ever facing a court action) & not kept in detention indefinitely.


As I said before, a fair trial during the war would give too much intelligence to the enemy.

The options are:

    a) a fair trial after the war b) an unfair trial during the war

The correct option is of course "a". However, for some reason a lot of people seem to want to disregard the fact that Geneva Conventions don't require a trial to simply hold an enemy soldier until the end of the war, and they are demanding that we hold trials during the war.

This means that they are going to have to make do with unfair trials.



msolga wrote:
If they are guilty then what's stopping these trials going ahead?


The trials are going ahead, unfairness and all.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 12:03 pm
Merry Andrew wrote:
Most of the detainees are not 'prisoners of war' in any previously accepted sense of the word. They were swept up in indiscriminate dragnets and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is why news reports always refer to them as 'detainees', not 'POWs'.


The reason they are not called POWs is because they were not lawful combatants.

Only lawful combatants get to be POWs.



Merry Andrew wrote:
And Oralloy is really muddying the waters by bringing Iraq into this equation.


Care to point out where I brought Iraq into the equation?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 12:08 pm
detano inipo wrote:
The US has done it before in order to circumvent the Geneva Convention. Nothing new here.
........................................
'Disarmed Enemy Forces' (DEF) is a designation for captive enemy soldiers. Most referenced by Dwight D. Eisenhower's redesignation of POW's in post WWII occupied Germany. The purpose of the designation is to circumvent the Geneva Convention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces
...........................
During Vietnam, America tortured, raped and murdered thousands of Vietnamese. We classified these people as neutralists, insurgents, communists and unlawful combatants-anything but prisoners of war.
.
http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/sw/sw44/Tiger-Cages.html


There is no circumvention required, given the fact that the Geneva Conventions are quite specific about the fact that unlawful combatants do not get to be POWs and may be detained incommunicado.

The people who are trying to pretend that there is something wrong with the incommunicado detention of unlawful combatants are the ones who are trying to circumvent the Geneva Conventions.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 12:21 pm
anton wrote:
Three men who have been held, without charge, in the US Concentration Camp at Guantanamo Bay have committed suicide by hanging … a very sad state of affairs for their families and those who have compassion … even the instigator of their incarceration George Bush is said to be concerned by their suicide and so he should seeing as he is directly responsible for it.


Bush is not responsible for it. They started it. Remember 9/11?



anton wrote:
Now one super idiot, Rear Admiral Harry Harris, Commander of Joint Taskforce at Guantanamo has declared the prisoners took their own lives to further the cause to which they are committed … what the hell is this fool on about,


Stating the truth does not make him an idiot.

There are a large number of people who want to disregard the Geneva Conventions and pretend that we are not allowed to detain unlawful combatants, incommunicado, for the duration of the war. The suicides were designed to set off these people and increase the pressure on us to close these camps. The end result, the suiciders hoped, would be that we would no longer be able to hold any enemy soldier that we captured on the battlefield.

Of course, in the unlikely event that we actually caved in to the anti-Guantanamo yammering, the alternative would be to summarily execute anyone we capture, right there on the battlefield.



anton wrote:
if they are guilty of a crime or belong to a terrorist organization why haven't they been charged.


You seem equally unaware of the fact that no charges are required (go read the Geneva Conventions) and of the fact that we have begun to charge people there.



anton wrote:
The world needs to wake up to this evil US Administration, they are corrupting the world with their barbaric disregard for freedom, decency and democracy


I doubt the world will "wake up" to your fictions about us.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 12:27 pm
Thomas wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Many people who are taken prisoner or arrested are later found to be innocent. What does that prove?

That it's not a good idea to treat detainees as irregular enemy combatants before their status is determined by a competent tribunal.


We did set up a tribunal to determine combatant from civilian.

That these combatants were unlawful seems a given since they had no proper uniforms. However, I do agree that we should have also gone through the motions and had a competent tribunal assess the fact that the combatants were unlawful.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 12:35 pm
I am just bookmarking here. But the logic behind the detentions at Gitmo and the suicides, suicide attempts, and descensions into insanity--"Acts of Warfare" according to the admiral there, reminded me of Lewis Carroll.
I Googled in Alice in Wonderland/Queen of Hearts to refresh my memory.
(It is is a bit, nay more than a bit, scary how easy it is for students to be able to write term papers without having to do anything more than punch a few buttons. Forget about actually reading the book. But that is not germane)).
Anyway, Carroll's presentation of logic/illogic strikes me as being pertinent even though he wrote it about Victorian England. And oh yes, the Queen of Hearts says, countless times: "Off with their heads" whenever she takes affront with someone's behavior.
End of bookmarking.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 12:37 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
According to you, prisoners should not be taken in a war without a trial first? This would be radically different from what has been done in past wars.


So we are speaking now of POW's?

we are speaking now of prisoners in the ordinary English sense of the word.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 12:38 pm
oralloy wrote:
Merry Andrew wrote:
Most of the detainees are not 'prisoners of war' in any previously accepted sense of the word. They were swept up in indiscriminate dragnets and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is why news reports always refer to them as 'detainees', not 'POWs'.


The reason they are not called POWs is because they were not lawful combatants.

Only lawful combatants get to be POWs.



Merry Andrew wrote:
And Oralloy is really muddying the waters by bringing Iraq into this equation.


Care to point out where I brought Iraq into the equation?


emphasis added

Sorry, Oralloy. It was msolga who brought that up. My fault.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 12:38 pm
Thomas wrote:
No, according to me, people caught by your troops should receive a speedy trial by a competent tribunal. If that tribunal finds a prisoner innocent, it should release them. If it finds him guilty, he stays as a prisoner of war, for the duration of the war, under the rules of the Geneva convention. But imprisoning people indefinitely without some process for petitioning their status is not acceptable.


Enemy soldiers may be detained until the end of the war, but I don't know that "guilt" or "innocence" are the correct way of thinking of it. POWs are not being detained because they committed a crime.

We did have such a tribunal assess the people at Guantanamo.

What we didn't do is have a competent tribunal separate the enemy soldiers into lawful and unlawful combatants. We should make a point of doing that as well, although it is clear that there aren't any lawful combatants among them (no uniforms).

I believe the Geneva Conventions also require a review of their status every half year. We should go through the motions there too, even though it is clear that they will need to be held until the end of the war.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 12:42 pm
Thomas wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
My question pertained to the circumstances of their capture. Neither your answer nor the link contains information that any prisoner was picked up without any reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Please tell me where the Pentagon published the grounds for suspicion that led to each specific prisoner's capture. I'll read it and get back to you.

Not a serious argument by you.

In our legal culture, the burden of proof is not on those who think people should be free. It is on those who think people should be in prison. In this case, this means I don't have to prove the inmates of Gitmo are wrongfully imprisoned. The Pentagon has to prove the inmates are rightfully imprisoned. Maybe I should have made this implication explicit.

If you maintain that the US's ordinary and common practice of taking prisoners during a war is improper, you should be willing to support the contention. Indeed, the US does not have to defend this right, which has been an accepted right of all nations since the beginning of time.

Thomas wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Many people who are taken prisoner or arrested are later found to be innocent. What does that prove?

That it's not a good idea to treat detainees as irregular enemy combatants before their status is determined by a competent tribunal.

So, according to you, the fact that someone is eventually found innocent proves he shouldn't have been arrested or captured? According to you, prisoners should not be taken in a war without a trial first? This would be radically different from what has been done in past wars.

No, according to me, people caught by your troops should receive a speedy trial by a competent tribunal. If that tribunal finds a prisoner innocent, it should release them. If it finds him guilty, he stays as a prisoner of war, for the duration of the war, under the rules of the Geneva convention. But imprisoning people indefinitely without some process for petitioning their status is not acceptable.

Since when have prisoners taken during a war been entitled to a trial? I suppose that we gave trials to all of the German and Japanese prisoners in WW2 and they to us? According to you, I suppose that prisoners taken during a war should have lawyers. It's so obviously out of line with anything which has ever occurred here on Earth that it's ludicrous.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 12:43 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
According to you, prisoners should not be taken in a war without a trial first? This would be radically different from what has been done in past wars.


So we are speaking now of POW's?


Close, but not exactly.

To be counted as a POW, one has to first be a lawful combatant. And POWs have rights to communicate with the outside world.

Unlawful combatants do not have the right to communicate with the outside world during their detention.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 12:45 pm
Merry Andrew wrote:
Sorry, Oralloy. It was msolga who brought that up. My fault.


That's OK.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 12:59 pm
oralloy wrote:


To be counted as a POW, one has to first be a lawful combatant. And POWs have rights to communicate with the outside world.

Unlawful combatants do not have the right to communicate with the outside world during their detention.


Close, but not exactly: non-combattants can become POW as well. :wink:

[With didn't hinder some to shoot at a non-combattant three times and mock-execute him later - in March/April 1945.]
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 01:09 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Close, but not exactly: non-combattants can become POW as well. :wink:


True. But unlawful combatants don't have that right (mainly due to forfeiting the right to communicate with the outside world).
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 01:55 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Since when have prisoners taken during a war been entitled to a trial?

Depends on what you mean by 'trial'. If they were simply civilians caught in the wrong time at the wrong place, the Geneva convention has always guaranteed that they could petition a competent tribunal to determine their status. I am not saying that the Guantanamo prisoners have a right to a full criminal trial, but they do have a right to a competent tribunal. I don't know the details of how the Geneva convention defines "a competent tribunal"; but no tribunal at all, indefinitely, certainly doesn't qualify.

I am sure Hitler's Germany and Hirohito's Japan have broken the Geneve convention frequently. But "better than Hitler" is a far shot from "acceptable".
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jun, 2006 03:44 pm
Thomas wrote:
If they were simply civilians caught in the wrong time at the wrong place, the Geneva convention has always guaranteed that they could petition a competent tribunal to determine their status. I am not saying that the Guantanamo prisoners have a right to a full criminal trial, but they do have a right to a competent tribunal. I don't know the details of how the Geneva convention defines "a competent tribunal";


I don't think the Geneva Conventions define it.

Do you think the Combatant Status Review Tribunals qualified?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The Story of Jumah al Dossari - Discussion by Diest TKO
Shame on Obama for not closing Gitmo - Discussion by Olivier5
9/11 Families Outraged - Discussion by H2O MAN
A Gitmo what if - Discussion by H2O MAN
Sigh, more lies about abuses - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2021 at 05:01:12